Article

Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (Impact Factor: 3.14). 02/2012; 77(1):224-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.01.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Treatment decisions for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are complex and require trade-offs between the benefits and risks experienced by patients. We evaluated the benefits that patients judged sufficient to compensate for the risks associated with therapy for NSCLC.
Participants with a self-reported diagnosis of NSCLC (n=100) were sampled from an online panel in the United Kingdom. Eligible and consenting participants then completed a self-administered online survey about their disease and their treatment preferences were assessed. This involved respondents choosing among systematically paired profiles that spanned eight attributes: progression-free survival [PFS], symptom severity, rash, diarrhoea, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, fever and infection, and mode of treatment administration (infusion and oral). A choice model was estimated using mixed-logit regression. Estimates of importance for each attribute level and attribute were then calculated and acceptable tradeoffs among attributes were explored.
A total of 89 respondents (73% male) completed all choice tasks appropriately. Increases in PFS together with improvements in symptom severity were judged most important and increased with PFS benefit - 4 months: 5.7; 95% CI: 3.5-7.9; 5 months: 7.1; 95% CI: 4.4-9.9; and 7 months: 10.0; 95% CI: 6.1-13.9. However, improvements in PFS were viewed as most beneficial when disease symptoms were mild and as detrimental when patients had severe symptoms. Fatigue (5.0; 95% CI: 2.7-7.3) was judged to be the most important risk, followed by diarrhoea (2.8; 95% CI: 0.7-4.9), nausea and vomiting (2.1; 95% CI: 0.1-4.1), fever and infection (2.1; 95% CI: 0.2-4.1), and rash (2.0; 95% CI: 0.2-3.9). Oral administration was preferred to infusion (1.8; 95% CI: 0.0-3.6). Patients with mild and moderate symptoms traded PFS for less risks or more convenience if the severe symptoms were not experienced.
This study demonstrates the value of conjoint analysis in the study of patient preferences for cancer treatments. In this small sample of patients with NSCLC from the UK, we demonstrate that the value of improvements in PFS is conditional upon the severity of disease symptoms; and that risks are valued differently.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
117 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The purpose of this study is to examine Indonesian men and women's satisfaction rating of the different attributes associated with location, convenience, accessibility, and affordability outpatient care. A secondary goal of this study is to assess whether attributes associated with location, convenience, accessibility, and affordability outpatient care differs among different segments of individuals. Methods A conjoint analysis of attributes associated with access to and utilization of outpatient care was conducted using the 2007 Indonesian Family and Life Survey. Results Results from the conjoint analysis revealed that type of facility was the most important determinant of preference, while one-way travel time was the least important determinant. Other attributes of considerable importance include the waiting time, the cost of treatment, and province where the facility is located. Conclusion Indonesians who utilizes the outpatient care are responsive to the type, cost, quality, and location of the outpatient care. The findings of this study also suggest that priority should be given to patients who visited facilities located in Sumatera and other provinces like Sunda, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku, and Papua.
    Health Policy and Technology. 08/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer-related deaths and thus represents a global health problem. According to World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, approximately 1.37 million people die each year from lung cancer. Different therapeutic approaches as well as several treatment options exist. To date decisions on which therapies to use have largely been made by clinical experts. Comparative preference studies show that underlying weighting of treatment goals by experts is not necessarily congruent with the preferences of affected patients.
    The European Journal of Health Economics 01/2014; · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New melanoma therapies, like e.g. ipilimumab, improve survival. However, only a small subset of patients benefits while 60% encounter side effects. Furthermore, these marginal benefits come at a very high price of €110'000 per treatment. This study examines attitudes towards melanoma therapy options of physicians, healthy individuals and patients, their willingness to pay and preference of quality versus length of life.
    PLoS ONE 11/2014; 9(11):e111237. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
0 Downloads
Available from
Jan 21, 2015